Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Saturday August 23 2014, @09:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the na-na-na-I-can't-hear-you dept.

A Hollywood-affiliated studio in Australia has said that they will be boycotting a public discussion on copyright due to it being dominated by "crazies" with a piracy agenda.

The main thrust from the government and entertainment industry figures is that something pretty drastic needs to be done about the illegal downloading habits of many Australians.

Consumer groups and citizens, on the other hand, want any response to be measured and coupled with assurances from entertainment companies that Australians will stop being treated like second-class consumers. Local ISPs have varying opinions, depending on the depth of their Big Media affiliations.

Back in July a discussion paper leaked revealing government proposals that include measures such as the tweaking of ISP liability right through to ‘pirate’ website blocking. Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull later indicated that a public Q&A would be held in September for representatives from the entertainment industries, ISPs, and consumer groups to air their thoughts on the proposals.

While the opportunity was welcomed by the majority of stakeholders, it’s now clear that not everyone will be there.

Village Roadshow is the company that mounted the most aggressive anti-piracy legal action ever against iiNet, one of Australia’s largest ISPs. They have a deep interest in how this debate pans out. This morning, however, co-CEO Graham Burke told ZDNet that his company wouldn’t be attending the discussions because he’ll be overseas at the time.

While that may be true, an email Burke sent to Turnbull and other participants shines rather more light on the topic.

“My company is not prepared to participate in the forum. As expressed to you previously these Q and A style formats are judged by the noise on the night and given the proposed venue I believe this will be weighted by the crazies,” Burke told the Minister.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by sjwt on Saturday August 23 2014, @09:12AM

    by sjwt (2826) on Saturday August 23 2014, @09:12AM (#84629)

    Honestly, you fuck the ppl over too much.. they will either roll over and take it, or they stand up and say enough is enough.

    We were fucked over for too long, too little availability, too high a price.. Be it back in the VHS days, Free to air TV, Internet speed and download limits, Cable TV variety and price...

    I can still turn on old sitcoms from the 80's and hear how they have access to 10 times the number of Cable TV channels that we do now.

    Sure, some of my favorite TV shows are finally coming out within 48 hours of American release, but the over all attitude still sucks, when things like previews for the next season released on official youtube channels are country restricted and we can't watch them?

    We got region free DVD legalised due to at one stage having less then 10% of the DVD titles that where available in america available in Australia, it was back when they where still new, but figures where link 20,000 titles available in Region 1 at the time and less than 800 on Region 4.

  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday August 23 2014, @10:50AM

    by Bot (3902) on Saturday August 23 2014, @10:50AM (#84639) Journal

    Criticizing the current status of copyright, which protects one category while, in other unprotected sectors, economic changes sweep out entire social classes => crazy
    "10000 downloads" means: "10000 missed purchases" => perfectly reasonable.

    --
    Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by f4r on Saturday August 23 2014, @11:23AM

    by f4r (4515) on Saturday August 23 2014, @11:23AM (#84642)

    He may as well be saying "There's a good chance we'll lose this public debate so we won't have it."

    Even if they were there, it would just be the same old regurgitated tripe, side-steeping questions and talking bigger and bigger numbers. As mentioned above, how the hell can geographic restrictions really be justified in this day and age for any reason other than price-gouging. Prior distribution arrangements that are already in place, I can understand, but why don't they move forward and just fucking sell their shit so we can buy it? No region locks, no geo-blocking, no separate release dates, and no fucking DRM?. Answer, nay, justify that, Mr Burke.

    these Q and A style formats are judged by the noise on the night

    Does he really think that we're so stupid that we can't tell when someone is just screeching to be heard? Does he think we are incapable of deducing who has a better argument simply because one person was shouting?

    --
    Do not use as directed.
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 23 2014, @11:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 23 2014, @11:48AM (#84646)

      They may not want someone to point out that the home computer video game industry was plagued with piracy during the 80s and 90s, and yet it now generates more money than the film or TV industries.

      Of course, the game production houses rip off their employees in any way they can and then bitch about piracy, too.

      Fuck 'em all. I've been involved in both, I've been paid shit and worked in conditions that should have seen the companies closed down because of the fines. They don't get in any trouble, though, because nobody has the guts to stand up to their employer when we have a neo-liberal government that tells us our bosses are rich because they worked hard. (That's a joke - my current employer is a multimillionaire because his father was born into it. He just inherited it.)

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday August 23 2014, @01:03PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday August 23 2014, @01:03PM (#84652) Homepage Journal

      Indeed, he's afraid of crazies? If he's boycotting there won't be any crazies, and I say that as someone who has registered four copyrights.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday August 23 2014, @02:06PM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday August 23 2014, @02:06PM (#84657) Journal

      I would go further. No DRM, and no copyright either. Abolish copyright.

      No more selling of copies. The entertainment industry must change their business model, and earn money through patronage, ads, endorsements, and such like. Of course they don't want to change, and they've shown a willingness to go to extremes to stop change. They play dirty. They do not deserve the chance to join any public debate, they deserve censure. In any case, I think the debate is over. Copyright is dead. The only thing left to debate are the details of the new business models. To let them come in and talk about strengthening copyright is about the same as letting Creationists come to a scientific conference on Evolution. At best they would only waste a little of everyone's time, and at worse they would stifle the real work by hogging the floor and making it impossible for anyone else to get a word in.

      Some big fines for their crimes might get their attention. Prison time, for all the cheating they've done, that would really get their attention. That we haven't done any of that only suggests to them that maybe we are that stupid. After all, what members of the banking world have served time for all the fraud and theft that lead to the Great Recession? Only Madoff.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday August 23 2014, @04:58PM

        by frojack (1554) on Saturday August 23 2014, @04:58PM (#84700) Journal

        You might be on to something here.

        Instead of a rant, why not post an actual business model that would fund a project like Lord of the Rings, or something less ambitious like 24 or Breaking Bad. Not just a handwave into existence of "patronage" but an actual business model where actors and makeup artists and seamstresses get actual paychecks.
        What you seem to be suggesting only work for bands that are content to spend the rest of their lives playing the same songs over and over in stinky bars and third rate casinos.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Saturday August 23 2014, @06:11PM

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday August 23 2014, @06:11PM (#84724) Journal

          Take another look at patronage. A good look. First, consider the past.

          Patronage is not a new idea, it's been around for centuries. In more recent times the US and Soviet Union engaged in a Space Race to try to show each other up, This resulted in huge amounts of money going to science. Centuries ago, Europe contested in more than straight war, they also tried to top each other in culture. Vienna has long been known as one of the top patrons of the arts. The result was hundreds of paintings, sculptures, writings, and perhaps most of all, music. It was certainly cheaper than the battlefield. This still lingers today, with every major city patronizing an orchestra of their own.

          Today, we can and are doing patronage much better than in the past. Then, it was only those with the means who could afford it-- the rich, the nobility, the powerful. Now we have the means to concentrate individual's wealth more effectively than ever. The National Endowment for the Arts is one way, but now we have Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Humble Bundle, and more. They've made millions for themselves and their artists. It works, and artists are coming around. We now have quality recordings of professional performances of such classics as Bach's Brandenburg Concertos, free of royalties and other strings. It won't be long before we have every significant classic recorded. Then there's Project Gutenberg, Musopen, and Wikipedia and all the other Wikis. True, they have their problems, but those as are nothing next to the problems with copyright.

          You might think Lord of the Rings is too big. First, have to consider Hollywood Accounting. It's not as big as it might seem. Maybe no site can yet handle the quantity of money needed, but it will come.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday August 23 2014, @06:26PM

            by frojack (1554) on Saturday August 23 2014, @06:26PM (#84728) Journal

            So no actual plans then?

            Just largely irreverent rambling about glory days of patronage in which .000001% of the people enjoyed the labors of a .000001% of the artists and the rest went without either art or customers. And Gutenberg? You think copyright wasn't involved there? Seriously?

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 23 2014, @07:24PM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 23 2014, @07:24PM (#84739) Journal

              At least get the history right! Gutenberg lost all rights to his invention, and dies penniless in 1468 [gutenberg-bible.com]. The first, ever, copyright law was the Statute of Queen Anne [wikipedia.org], 1710. And I do not think that the owner of the Gutenberg press was paying royalties to the author of the Bible, just saying.

              • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday August 23 2014, @11:01PM

                by frojack (1554) on Saturday August 23 2014, @11:01PM (#84771) Journal

                The discussion is about PROJECT Gutenberg, not Gutenberg himself.

                The vast majority of the PROJECT Gutenberg collection consists of works for which there was some form of Copyright protection, but that protection has lapsed.

                --
                No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by lhsi on Saturday August 23 2014, @11:05PM

          by lhsi (711) on Saturday August 23 2014, @11:05PM (#84772) Journal

          The BBC has a different business model to most yet has been able to produce things like Doctor Who. If you squint really hard, the license fee could be compared to a Kickstarter or Patreon for a years worth of a variety of content.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday August 23 2014, @11:35PM

            by frojack (1554) on Saturday August 23 2014, @11:35PM (#84781) Journal

            It hasn't always worked out that well. And I can't say I have much interest in government funded art.

            Patronage and the Status of the Artist [khanacademy.org] explains why there is such a dearth of art styles prior to, (and even during) the Renaissance. When the only guy buying your art is the fatcat that want's a family portrait there isn't much experimentation, nor much variety.

            My house is filled with art from artists you have never, and probably will never hear of. I didn't hire any of them. (well, not strictly true, I had one gal make a portrait sized pen and ink drawing of an airplane that was once in my possession. She fucked it up, because even though she was sitting at the airport, she never bothered to look at any airplane in flight).

            I purchased what I liked from local artists. All numbered prints of runs less than 100. In spite of the fact that I own them, it has never occurred to me make copies.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 23 2014, @05:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 23 2014, @05:32PM (#84710)

    maybe it should be illegal to make BAD copies.
    afterall most artists are trying hard to polish the quality of their work and then a BAD copy could seem like the ulimate degradation of some work.
    also a case could be made for making bad copies of a physical item. lets say shoes. we assume the company making these original shoes put alot of effort into creating this most wonderful comfortable shoes and then some "crazies" comes along and makes a bad copy and slaps on the original manufacturers name onto them.
    this pair of bad copy shoes will obviously give a bad name to original manufacturer.
    I think this makes sense.
    as for the internet, it is really the simplest form of a teleporter (and who wouldnt want one even if it's just this basic). the internet and the connected computer are fundamentally copy machines and they are interconnected.
    telling a computer not to make copies is like telling a bear not to shit in the woods.
    so on the one hand the "movie distributor" would like to use this teleporter but on the other hand they are scared stiff that they cannot control it.
    I have come to the conclusion however that "they" do not want to add value to their product but instead want to ...duh ... make more money.
    if they would really care about me then they would print a promotion code on the movie ticket which would allow me to fetch a "archieve" of the movie thru the teleporter for which I just paid 4 bucks. this scenario would be a adde value to their product.
    in reality they want me to pay AGAIN ...and they want to use the teleporter to do it.
    well long story short: I enjoy going to the cinema (believe me or not) and I have pacified my inner demon and download all that I have seen in the cinema without inhibition.
    and yes ... I went to watch the "expandables 3" : ) ... in the cinema (even smuggled in some of my own pocorn.)